Questions about JW’s

Apparently your not familar with Philippians 2:5-9. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus vs6, who although He (always) existed as God/in the form of God, did not take advantage of being God, vs7, but emptied Himself of the preogatives He already had as God and became a man." vs8, being found in the appearance of a man, HE CHJOSE TO HUMBLE HIMSELF by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross."

For example, let's say your a billionare and you DECIDE not to spend one dime of your money and live like a hermit/homeless person. No matter how you live and put yourself through, your still a billionare. This is what Howard Huges actually did. If you don't know who he is look it up.

And btw, here are few verses showing the "omniscience" of God. https://www.openbible.info/topics/omniscience

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Why do you keep refusing to answer NWLs questions bluto? It's frustrating following your posts and seeing that each and every response you make you ignore the elephant in the room while pretending that you're answering questions when you're not.

Answering questions posed to you when dialoguing with others about a particular topic is an essential means of qualifying whether the things one person is professing can stand to scrutiny of opposing thought and cross-examination, which you are failing to demonstrate.

This is typical Trinitarian behaviour, as a JW myself I see it all the time when discussing topics with people. When people are against the ropes with their theology they just outright try and avoid the obvious and end up refusing to respond to the outright obvious if its contradicts their world view, which you and so many others on this forum section have done when similar questions have been posed to them. Do the forum a favour and answer the questions if you intend to have a meaningful dialogue, anything else and you're just embarrassing yourself and your position, as its quite blatant you're avoiding the questions. Address his questions!

Bluto, as I mentioned in my previous post the Greek word 'arche' never means originator/architect/source/beginner, this false idea is often pushed by Trinitarians and if often cited by seemingly learned people, the fact remains, the term never carries the connotation of originator/architect/source/beginner. Try and find me a reference to where someone shows evidence that the term 'arche' means "source of action", you'll find they never do! People, books, and articles will say the term 'arche' can mean originator/architect but they will never reference where or how they have come to this conclusion. For example, look at Thayer's lexicon of the word 'arche' and notice all the different meaning the word has, then look at when he references the word meaning "originator/active cause" and notice he only list Rev 3:14, all the other meanings and variation of the word he was able to list with numerous examples. This is circular reasoning, you cannot prove a word means something, where the proof that the word means what it never means is the very verse in question. If you want to try and push that the word "arche" means originator/architect/source/beginner then show me in the bible, or even where other people show from the bible where the word 'arche' means originator/architect/source/beginner that isn't Rev 3:14? (wikipedia doesn't reference examples, neither does the book 'Jesus and the end times', they simply make assertions based on false information).

View attachment 218476
As you can see above, Thayer clearly highlights that the word was first used with the understanding of originator/architect/source/beginner in the 8th century, 800 years after the bible was written!

Below you'll find the points you did not address in my last post, please just get it over and done with already and address what I said, as soon as you do I will carry on with my explanation and fully answer your previous questions to me.

I said: Just answer the question, stop beating around the bush, does the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 literally mean 'everything' and include 'all things', does it or doesn't it, please just answer the quesiton. OR can I take your comment of, "Why in the world would you ask me about Colossians 1:18 and think that I think "all things" or "everything" would include anything in the world?", as an affirmation that you do not take the "all things" and "everything" in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8 to be 100% literal?

Your answer to my above question could be "yes, 'all things' and everything did literally mean 'all things' and literally 'everything' in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8" OR "no, 'all things' and 'everything' did not include literally 'all things' and literally 'everything' in Col 1:18 and Hebrews 2:8", which one is it! Why can you not answer the question as simply as this?????

In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 ("
which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father") the first person of the trinity the Father? (this question is very relevant to our discussion of Rev 3:14 hence why I asked it in foresight)



You must be extremely ignorant and arrogant to make the comment you just made, even in English language evolves, new words are made every few years, go find me the words 'internet', 'email', 'voicemail', ''emoji', 'wifi', 'dope', show me where the word 'gay' meant homosexual instead of 'joyful' prior to the 19th century. Language evolves, fact! Have you ever heard of the term ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew, have you ever wondered why they are modified by the word 'ancient', its because they are dead languages since they have evolved into modern Hebrew and modern Greek, the same way old English evolved into the modern English that we speak today. You have no clue on the matter and just use an ad hominem attack on me and reference another place where some claims 'arche' means originator but nowhere themselves reference how they've come to this conclusion.

Oh please, I have addressed the questions and I get tired of hearing "you Trinitarians etc." Yes, I am a Trinitarian and have been one for 58 years now. I have formal debates with Witnesses in Southeren California. I've been invited to your kingdom halls and debated three elders at one time. God has used me to reach JW's who have left your organization and a two them were in there 25 and 30 years respectively. I know what they went through by being "shunned" by their own family. And guess what, both of them ended up converting their family and relatives to the real Jesus Christ, not some "a god" who you guys deem as "chopped" liver.

bluto

Why do you keep refusing to answer NWLs questions bluto? It's frustrating following your posts and seeing that each and every response you make you ignore the elephant in the room while pretending that you're answering questions when you're not.

Answering questions posed to you when dialoguing with others about a particular topic is an essential means of qualifying whether the things one person is professing can stand to scrutiny of opposing thought and cross-examination, which you are failing to demonstrate.

This is typical Trinitarian behaviour, as a JW myself I see it all the time when discussing topics with people. When people are against the ropes with their theology they just outright try and avoid the obvious and end up refusing to respond to the outright obvious if its contradicts their world view, which you and so many others on this forum section have done when similar questions have been posed to them. Do the forum a favour and answer the questions if you intend to have a meaningful dialogue, anything else and you're just embarrassing yourself and your position, as its quite blatant you're avoiding the questions. Address his questions!

Uh, no we dont need it to be cunningly reframed like your bogus changed bible changes it.

Your cunning disenfranchisement will get you a proper pay day.

You are anti Christ. Your stand and tireless efforts are to spread lies and false doctrine cunningly cooked up by your false leaders.

1 Corinthians 15:14-18

All JW's believe that Jesus was raised form the dead

This is correct, you need to realize that a God who does not have the ability to not know things he chooses not to know is not all-powerful. Compare the below comparisons and decide for yourself what being would be more powerful:

Who is more powerful, (1) A being who has the ability to know all things but can decide what he wants to know OR (2) a being who can only know all things and lacks the ability to choose to know or not know?

The answer is obvious, (1) the being who has the has the ability to know all things but can decide what he wants to know is one who is more powerful since he has a choice, whereas the other one does not, NOTHING is impossible with God, whereas the God whom YOU worship lacks the ability of choice, whereas our one does not.

.


Were John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary to be
questioned if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure
you they would answer in the affirmative. However, what you may not know
is that they and the interviewer would not be speaking the same language as
the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go
by the same name. In other words: you would find yourself thrown off by
semantic double speak.





You see, if Jesus' dead, crucified body had not been restored to life, that
entire passage would be easily proven false. But according to the
Watchtower Society's way of seeing things; Christ's dead, crucified body
didn't return to life at all; and here's why.

In Watchtower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to
come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to
relinquish his angel existence to become a human existence seeing as how
in Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and
a human being simultaneously. However, when Michael expired, he didn't go
completely out of existence. Instead, his so-called "life force" remained
intact and was transferred to a human form.

"the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth.
Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the
same person who had resided in heaven as the Word." (Aid to Bible
Understanding, 1971, p.920)


NOTE: The Society teaches that death terminates existence; but apparently
not entirely because the Society also believes that at death, an angel's life
force was transferred to another form-- in Michael's case, from a spirit form
to an organic form; in effect, preserving a portion of Michael's existence so it
could be re-transferred later when God went about restoring Michael to his
former existence.

It could be argued that Jesus lives on in the body of an angel; but that
wouldn't be true seeing as how Jesus' life force would've been Michael's to
begin with.

The Society has to accept the obvious fact that their doctrine implies that
Jesus Christ was never really fully human, rather, he was an amalgam of
angel and human seeing as how it was the life force of an angel that kept
Jesus' human body alive. In other words: the Society's Jesus wasn't an
organic human in the normal sense, rather; he was an organic angel.

FYI: The Society maintains that Michael's crucified human form had to stay
dead so he could be an angel again. But that's not the only reason the
Society gives for keeping Michael's human remains perpetually deceased. An
additional explanation is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the
Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and
enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be
no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be
taking his sacrifice off God's altar."

There is a really, really big flaw in the Society's theology; and that's
Michael's human remains. In order to confirm that his crucified human body
stayed dead, the Society is going to have produce it. A piece of evidence of
that significance can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if
it makes no difference. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence." Till then, we should reckon that when the
Bible speaks of Jesus Christ's resurrection, it's talking about a human corpse
rather than an angel's.

Copied and Pasted from post No.15
_

.


Were John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary to be
questioned if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure
you they would answer in the affirmative. However, what you may not know
is that they and the interviewer would not be speaking the same language as
the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go
by the same name. In other words: you would find yourself thrown off by
semantic double speak.

The classical Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common
throughout the gospels; viz: Jesus Christ's dead, crucified body was restored
to life as per John 2:19-22.

"Jesus said to them: Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up. Therefore the Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and will
you raise it up in three days? But he was talking about the temple of his
body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to
mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the
saying that Jesus said."

You see, if Jesus' dead, crucified body had not been restored to life, that
entire passage would be easily proven false. But according to the
Watchtower Society's way of seeing things; Christ's dead, crucified body
didn't return to life at all; and here's why.

In Watchtower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to
come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to
relinquish his angel existence to become a human existence seeing as how
in Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and
a human being simultaneously. However, when Michael expired, he didn't go
completely out of existence. Instead, his so-called "life force" remained
intact and was transferred to a human form.

"the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth.
Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the
same person who had resided in heaven as the Word." (Aid to Bible
Understanding, 1971, p.920)

"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His
life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum
of the virgin girl, Mary." (Watchtower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)

But Michael's existence as a human being was only temporary. When his
human form passed away on the cross, the Society claims that God
transferred Michael's life force back into his angel form thus restoring him to
his former spirit existence; leaving the corpse of his human existence in a
permanent state of decease.

NOTE: The Society teaches that death terminates existence; but apparently
not entirely because the Society also believes that at death, an angel's life
force was transferred to another form-- in Michael's case, from a spirit form
to an organic form; in effect, preserving a portion of Michael's existence so it
could be re-transferred later when God went about restoring Michael to his
former existence.

It could be argued that Jesus lives on in the body of an angel; but that
wouldn't be true seeing as how Jesus' life force would've been Michael's to
begin with.

The Society has to accept the obvious fact that their doctrine implies that
Jesus Christ was never really fully human, rather, he was an amalgam of
angel and human seeing as how it was the life force of an angel that kept
Jesus' human body alive. In other words: the Society's Jesus wasn't an
organic human in the normal sense, rather; he was an organic angel.

FYI: The Society maintains that Michael's crucified human form had to stay
dead so he could be an angel again. But that's not the only reason the
Society gives for keeping Michael's human remains perpetually deceased. An
additional explanation is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the
Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and
enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be
no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be
taking his sacrifice off God's altar."

There is a really, really big flaw in the Society's theology; and that's
Michael's human remains. In order to confirm that his crucified human body
stayed dead, the Society is going to have produce it. A piece of evidence of
that significance can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if
it makes no difference. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence." Till then, we should reckon that when the
Bible speaks of Jesus Christ's resurrection, it's talking about a human corpse
rather than an angel's.
_

Firstly, JW's do not in any way shape or form have formal debates at Kingdom Halls, it is something not permitted and never has been. So, this is either an outright lie on your part and you're simply saying it to boost your credibility over this forum, which is ironic as you are clearly lying, or you went to a Kingdom Hall meeting once and simply spoke to a few JW Elders in an informally setting. Do your homework, JW's don’t formally debate at Kingdom halls.

Secondly, no you haven’t answered his questions. It’s been weeks since he asked you some seemingly very simple questions, i.e. does “all things” in Col 1:16 literally mean all things. You’ve yet to give a straight forward or direct answer, instead you waffle and give strawmen answers. He asked you if “Nothing” at Hebrews 2:8 means literally nothing and you’ve yet to give a straightforward answer and instead accused him of something which JW’s (and I assume himself included) do not believe as you misunderstood him making a statement for argument sake as him making a statement of truth. (JW's do not believe Jesus was the first murder, we both know NWL was not suggesting this but as he said was a “thought experiment”.)

All you seem to do is evade and wave a flag around as if you’ve conquered his questions when you have not. It does not go unnoticed by others reading your comments. No one cares if you've been a Trinitarian 58 years, truth is truth irrespective if someone is 10years old or 50 years old. Give direct answers and stop evading the obvious questions with strawmen, you're not fooling anyone.

Answer his questions;

-Does “first in all things” mean all things in Col 1:16?

-Does “nothing” regarding what God left under mans/Jesus feet mean literally nothing in Hebrews 2:8?

-Does God YHWH have the ability to choose to not know something, or, does he lack the ability to be able to choose to not know something?

-In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 the first person of the trinity the Father?

Why do you keep refusing to answer NWLs questions bluto? It's frustrating following your posts and seeing that each and every response you make you ignore the elephant in the room while pretending that you're answering questions when you're not.

Answering questions posed to you when dialoguing with others about a particular topic is an essential means of qualifying whether the things one person is professing can stand to scrutiny of opposing thought and cross-examination, which you are failing to demonstrate.

This is typical Trinitarian behaviour, as a JW myself I see it all the time when discussing topics with people. When people are against the ropes with their theology they just outright try and avoid the obvious and end up refusing to respond to the outright obvious if its contradicts their world view, which you and so many others on this forum section have done when similar questions have been posed to them. Do the forum a favour and answer the questions if you intend to have a meaningful dialogue, anything else and you're just embarrassing yourself and your position, as its quite blatant you're avoiding the questions. Address his questions!

Just a fair warning, if this thread turns into defending the heresies of the Jehova's Witness it will be closed and the offenders removed.

Oh please, I have addressed the questions and I get tired of hearing "you Trinitarians etc." Yes, I am a Trinitarian and have been one for 58 years now. I have formal debates with Witnesses in Southeren California. I've been invited to your kingdom halls and debated three elders at one time. God has used me to reach JW's who have left your organization and a two them were in there 25 and 30 years respectively. I know what they went through by being "shunned" by their own family. And guess what, both of them ended up converting their family and relatives to the real Jesus Christ, not some "a god" who you guys deem as "chopped" liver.

The whole issue for me is not about Trinitarianism, but who is Jesus Christ. Why do you think at Matthew 16:13 Jesus ask His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" What did Peter say at vs16? "Thou are the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God." And at vs17, who do you think revelaed this to Peter? "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

And what did Jesus say to the Pharises at Matthew 22:42-46. "What do you think about the Christ/Messiah, whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David." Vs41, Then how does David in the Spirit, (i.e the Holy Spirit and not Gods active force) call Him Lord, saying , vs44, "The Lord(=God) said to My Lord(=the Messiah) sit at My right hand, until I put thine enemies beneath Thy feet?"

Vs45, "If Davidthen calls Him Lord, how is David his son?" To some of us the contradiction is clear: How could the Messiah simultaneously be David's son and his Lord? And notice what vs46 states. "And no one was able to answer Him a word." So, if the Jews could not answer Jesus, you can't. So don't pretend or think you got me "trapped" and I'm in a "shudder" hiding under my desk. You in the big leagues now and not messing around with little kids.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Scripture does not teach that God can be omniscient, it teaches He is omniscient. Omniscience is an attribute not a super power, there is a difference.

At least you admit to worshipping a different god, maybe there’s hope for you yet @NWL

Scripture does not teach that God can be omniscient, it teaches He is omniscient. Omniscience is an attribute not a super power, there is a difference.

At least you admit to worshipping a different god, maybe there’s hope for you yet @NWL